9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1554 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - Illegal mining - prosecution and cognizance of the offence or not - power to arrest without warrant in case of cognizable offences - HELD THAT - The order of the High Court refusing to set aside the prosecution and cognizance of the offence taken by the learned Magistrate Under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. It is clarified that prosecution and cognizance Under Section 21 read with Section 4 of the Mines Regulation Act will not be valid and justified in the absence of the authorisation. Further, the observations in deciding and answering the legal issue should not be treated as findings on the factual allegations made in the complaint. The trial court would independently apply its mind to the factual allegations and decide the charge in accordance with law. The prosecution and cognizance of the offence Under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is upheld - appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 2. Prosecution under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 4. Validity of police investigation and charge-sheet. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: The Appellant contended that under Section 22 of the Mines Regulation Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Central or State Government. The Appellant argued that the police, not being authorized, could not have filed the charge-sheet. The Court referred to the case of *Sanjay* (2014) 9 SCC 772, which clarified that Section 22 does not bar police from investigating and prosecuting offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) even if the same act constitutes an offence under the Mines Regulation Act. 2. Prosecution under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code: The Appellant argued that the special statute (Mines Regulation Act) should prevail over the general statute (IPC), and thus, prosecution under Section 379 IPC should not be maintainable. The Court rejected this contention, citing *Sanjay* (supra) and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, which allows prosecution under different enactments as long as the offender is not punished twice for the same offence. The Court emphasized that the theft of sand, once excavated, constitutes a movable property and thus can be prosecuted under Section 379 IPC. 3. Prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: The Court upheld the prosecution and cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, without detailed discussion, implying that the Appellant's actions fell within the purview of this Act as well. 4. Validity of police investigation and charge-sheet: The Court reiterated that the police have the authority to investigate cognizable offences, including those under the IPC, even if the same act is punishable under a special statute like the Mines Regulation Act. The Court cited *H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi* AIR 1955 SC 196, stating that a defect in investigation does not affect the competence of the court to take cognizance or conduct a trial. The Court also referred to *Jeewan Kumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation* (2009) 7 SCC 526, distinguishing it based on the specific provisions and factual circumstances of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, which were not analogous to the Mines Regulation Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order refusing to quash the prosecution under Section 379 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. However, it clarified that prosecution under Section 21 read with Section 4 of the Mines Regulation Act would not be valid without proper authorization. The Court emphasized that its observations should not influence the trial court's independent assessment of the factual allegations. The appeal was partly allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
|
